[RPRWG] P802.17b D1_2 Multicast Conference Call Reminder
- To: STDS-802-17@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: [RPRWG] P802.17b D1_2 Multicast Conference Call Reminder
- From: "Mike Takefman (tak)" <tak@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 13:54:46 -0500
- Reply-To: "Mike Takefman (tak)" <tak@xxxxxxxxx>
- Thread-Index: AcYhBavvBHbvFoBdR6ig7WSeEU/uKw==
- Thread-Topic: P802.17b D1_2 Multicast Conference Call Reminder
RPRWGers,
A reminder that this Friday is a conference call to
discuss multicast scoping in 802.17b.
Call starts at 9am (dial in 866-902-7862 ID 8021700).
During the past few weeks a few people have changed their
votes and the new results are shown below.
We are still slightly short of a decision on both
question. Thus, if people wish to change their votes based
on reviewing the current results, they should contact me
immediately.
As previously reported, there were 2 questions that did
not achieve a concensus view
----------------------------------------------------------
Question 3:
3) Multicast scoping should have the following
features. [Note: a, b, and c get a 2-address frame from the client (as
compared to d).]
a. Scope basic frames without SAS learning
b. Scope extended frames without SAS learning
c. Scope extended frames with SAS learning
d. Scope client frames with 4 addresses without SAS learning
The set of {a,b,c,d} has decreased to acceptable to 50% of voters
(6 of 12) but had 5 negative votes for that option.
The set of {a,b,c} has increased to be acceptable to 66% of voters
(8 of 12) but has 2 negative votes for that option.
Note that option {a,b,c} is now 1 vote away from being acceptable
to a 75% majority.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Question 6:
6) Assuming it is done frame by frame, control over how a
frame is processed is via:
a. Client supplied request parameter(s)
b. Configuration of the Multicast Table
c. Both, client request takes priority
d. Both, table takes priority
Option C has 8 votes or 72% support but 2 negative votes
Option B has 7 votes or 63% support but 3 negative votes
Either of these options could go over the top, but clearly
C requires just 1 versus 2 more voter(s).
Because of the near loss on C the editor was instructed to
prepare text (in editor's notes) assuming C was selected. The
text will not be an official part of the draft until it is
approved.
cheers,
mike
-------------------------------------------
Michael Takefman tak@cisco.com
Distinguished Engineer, Cisco Systems
Chair IEEE 802.17 Stds WG
3000 Innovation Dr, Ottawa, Canada, K2K 3E8
voice: 613-254-3399 cell:613-220-6991